Democracy: Should we sacrifice Dino for Smart?

Intolerance is waxing strong in this country. Many of us harbour it but don’t recognise that we do. Yet, it’s there in our comments, the judgment we pass, the assessment we make of others. Why should this be of concern? Intolerance is a trigger, the cause of many of the negative acts being perpetrated in our nation. It’s even more dangerous when people who are in positions of authority house a high dose of it. It influences the decision they make, thereby setting the nation on a trajectory that can put everyone into trouble.

It should cause anxiety when those who have already occupied important positions in this country give one reasons to suspect that they are intolerant. Senator Smart Adeyemi asked his interviewer a question in one of the episodes of ‘Politics Today’ on Channels TV not long ago. The question is: “Would you prefer to have me as your senator or have Dino (Melaye) as senator?” Adeyemi’s question is harmless, but only to the viewer who chooses to not read it beyond what is uttered. To those who think it through however, his question shows a mindset, it raises issues.

Adeyemi implies that there’s nothing good about Senator Dino Melaye. He implies that he’s 100 per cent a better person than his political rival. There’s a grain of intolerance in that. Adeyemi possibly means he’s a ‘better person’ in personality, in politics and in whatever else he has in mind. Some may agree with him. I don’t. My broad view is that no person is totally bad and the other completely perfect. As Yoruba people say, even a bad child has a day when he can prove useful. Adeyemi has what he can contribute to our democracy, and so does Melaye. In any case, being the ‘better person’ is relative, issue-based, time-bound, and it’s subjective, essentially the judgment of assessors rather than that of the person concerned. In the case of Adeyemi and Melaye, we knew the judgment of the assessors in the Kogi West Senatorial District when voters had to pick between both politicians during the 2015 election. Here, I don’t focus on these two men as much as I do what each of them symbolises in our democracy.

I have never met either Adeyemi or Melaye. If I should prefer one to the other, it should be Adeyemi who was once the national president of the Nigerian Union of Journalists. But this issue is beyond sentiment. For the trait of intolerance that Adeyemi’s question contains is already a threat to the existence of this nation and no concerned observer should overlook it. Intolerance for others that many in our public space exhibit is at a toxic level, dangerous enough to incinerate even. I’m alarmed when anyone speaks as though there’s nothing good about others. The other tribe is totally bad. The other religion is completely evil. The other person is disagreeable, totally intolerable, of no use to our polity. A close look at such a disposition shows that many Nigerians simply dismiss people who do things and think differently from the way they do. Must all human beings be of the same disposition and temperance?

Anyone who had watched Adeyemi while he was in the Senate would realise that there was a big difference between him and Melaye. I mean this in temperament and the issues that each of them pursues. It’s how lawmakers operate everywhere. They choose issues they wish to pursue and for which their tenure would be remembered. The manner each goes about doing this has a lot to do with the temperament and the energy level of the politician concerned. Adeyemi was clearly pro-sitting government when he was in the Senate. On so many occasions, he rose on the floor to reject allegations made against the government of the day, attacking in the process members of the opposition who made the allegations. The reader knows the implication for democracy if all lawmakers defend every action taken by the executive.

Melaye has openly opposed steps taken by the sitting governments on the floor, and he has also defended governments depending on the way he sees an issue. The reader knows the relevance of that kind of disposition in a democracy too. Moreover, I don’t recall Adeyemi taking up anti-corruption fight so virulently as Melaye has done. Melaye didn’t start today, he started under a past leadership in the House of Reps when he exposed inconsistencies in the manner items were procured for members. Equally, we saw on TV how some of our people turned to Melaye, and he personally presented their corruption allegations against government officials in documents at the office of the anti-graft agency. Maybe, much has not been heard of those cases, but by pursuing such issues Melaye has clearly defined himself to Nigerians regarding what he stands for. Some of us feel safer with politicians whose precise stands we know. It’s how personalities in other climes who have a clear vision of where they are going conduct their political or professional careers.

I’ve listened to many other commentators on TV and radio castigating a high energy person such as Melaye. That was how some had dismissed Gani Fawehinmi, Femi Falana, Festus Keyamo when they started out in their law careers. Today, we know these “radical” men have established themselves by doing things the way they know, the way they’re wired. Now, they also enjoy the same respect and have the same access to the high and mighty in the land as those who chose to be docile at the start of their careers.

I’ve stated that individuals can carry their intolerance into positions of authority and harm the system. It reminds me of the kind of ‘eccentric’ individuals employed in respected institutions away from our shores. For instance, the CNN and the BBC tolerate journalists such as Richard Quest and Aaron Heslehurst. Both aren’t TV presenters in the traditional mode. Quest’s energy can scatter a TV studio. He does things in front of camera that many presenters would feel uncomfortable doing. Quest had been like this at the BBC years ago before the CNN lured him to its stable.

He’s like Heslehurst, the rapid talker, dramatic presenter, who’s still with the BBC. As I write this, I watched Heslehurst present, ‘Talking Business’ on May 30, 2018. The entire studio couldn’t contain him; he kept running, bounding, skipping, and sliding from one end to the other. Some may be critical of Quest’s and Heslehurst’s approach to their jobs, but their employers are tolerant enough to let them be who they are. In Nigeria, some heads of institutions won’t touch Quest and Heslehurst with a long stick.

We should also remind ourselves that diverse personality traits, and sometimes the clashes resulting from such, are one factor that brings energy to any society, makes it dynamic, and propels it forward. Had there not been seemingly intolerable, high energy and ‘eccentric’ persons like Galileo and Martin Luther in past centuries there wouldn’t have emerged the age of rationalism and empiricism which laid foundation for modern world’s scientific and technological wonders.

I think something is fundamentally flawed in a society where people neither tolerate others nor respect natural diversity. Something needs to change in a society where people belittle those who do things in a different manner, with whatever good they may want to contribute to the society. Adeyemi made his contribution in the way he knew. Melaye is making his in the way he knows. Our democracy needs what these two personalities symbolise.

Copyright PUNCH.All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from PUNCH.